Why do Women Cling to Feminism?

There's a powerful force at play that binds both men and women to the belief that feminism stands for equality. Despite clear evidence to the contrary, public perception remains steadfast. This strong adhesive, I believe, is gynocentrism—an often unnoticed bias that influences both genders to avoid confronting the truth.

But what exactly is gynocentrism? It's the pervasive belief that women's needs, desires, and perspectives should take precedence. This societal tendency elevates women's experiences to a central position in discussions of justice, equality, and societal norms. Remarkably, many are unaware of this bias within themselves; it operates subtly yet significantly in everyday life.

Feminists, whether knowingly or not, have harnessed gynocentrism as a tool to shield their ideology from scrutiny. By framing their movement around the principle that women's well-being and viewpoints must be prioritized—a core tenet of gynocentrism—they've built an ideology that resonates not just with women, but also with men who unwittingly accept this framework.

1. Emotional Investment and Identity

Feminism offers an emotionally charged, identity-affirming cause that, for many women, becomes central to how they define themselves and their place in the world. Gynocentrism amplifies this by creating a cultural framework in which women’s experiences are not just important, but inherently more valid and deserving of attention than men’s. Within this framework, feminist ideology is elevated from a political stance to a moral imperative — a movement that feels inseparable from one’s personal worth and identity.

Because gynocentrism positions women’s struggles as uniquely significant, feminism is perceived not simply as one of many social causes, but as the cause — the rightful focal point of empathy, policy, and moral concern. This emotional elevation makes feminist beliefs harder to question, because doing so feels like a denial of women’s legitimacy or suffering. For women, this gynocentric framing allows personal grievances to be folded into a broader, sanctified struggle, making feminism both empowering and emotionally protective.

Men, too, are drawn into this framework. Socialized to prioritize women’s needs and seek moral approval through deference, many adopt feminist ideals not out of conviction, but out of a sense of duty or fear of moral condemnation. Biology also plays a role, as evolutionary pressures have shaped men to be caretakers and protectors, further reinforcing this inclination. In this way, gynocentrism doesn’t just support feminism—it shields it, fuels it, and emotionally compels loyalty to it, even in the face of contradictory evidence or unfair outcomes.

2. The Power of Groupthink and Social Reinforcement

Feminism thrives on social reinforcement, and groupthink plays a significant role in maintaining this ideological strength. In a gynocentric society, the idea that women’s perspectives should dominate is not only normalized but encouraged, creating an environment where challenging feminist ideals feels uncomfortable or even socially unacceptable. This dynamic is further amplified by women’s strong in-group bias—a well-documented psychological tendency to show loyalty, empathy, and moral deference to other women, often at the expense of fairness to those outside the group. In feminist circles, this in-group loyalty reinforces a collective identity centered on shared grievances and moral superiority, making dissent feel like betrayal. The power of groupthink is sustained by constant affirmation that women’s needs are paramount, and anyone questioning this premise risks social ostracism—or worse, being labeled a misogynist. This creates an atmosphere where individuals—especially men—find it difficult to voice opposition, as doing so is perceived not as a critique of ideas, but as an attack on women themselves and the gynocentric norms that have been so deeply entrenched in society.

3. Fear of Losing Hard-Won Progress

For many women, feminism is not just a political or social movement — they have been led to believe that it’s the framework that secured their rights, safety, and dignity in a historically male-dominated world. This association makes feminism deeply personal and emotionally charged. Gynocentrism reinforces this by framing women’s societal gains not merely as important milestones, but as personal validations of their identity and worth — making feminist progress feel inseparable from female value itself. It casts any challenge to feminist orthodoxy — even a measured critique — as a threat to women’s safety, freedom, or status.

As a result, the push to prioritize women’s rights over men’s is not just about fairness or equality; it becomes a reflexive act of self-preservation. For women who have internalized feminism as synonymous with progress and protection, any perceived rollback is existential. The fear is not just that rights might be lost, but that their societal value might be diminished.

Gynocentrism amplifies this anxiety by maintaining a singular focus on women’s needs, portraying them as the perpetual underdogs, regardless of social context or material advantage. This selective lens obscures male suffering, sidelines men’s rights, and downplays the unintended consequences of a one-sided narrative. In doing so, it creates an emotional and moral environment where any call for balance or shared empathy is viewed with suspicion — or even hostility — because it feels like a threat to hard-won ground.

4. Media and Cultural Narratives

The media and cultural narratives overwhelmingly reflect and reinforce gynocentrism, often framing women as the default victims and men as the default perpetrators. Feminism, which aligns itself with this framework, benefits from the widespread acceptance of these skewed narratives. Media portrayals of gender dynamics rarely include nuanced views on how both men and women can suffer from societal issues. Instead, they lean heavily on the gynocentric view that women’s needs—whether related to equality, protection, or support—should always take precedence. By embedding this perspective into the cultural psyche, feminism gains more followers and becomes harder to challenge.

5. Victimhood and Empowerment

Feminism often draws strength from a narrative of victimhood, positioning women as the oppressed group within a patriarchal system. Gynocentrism powerfully reinforces this narrative by casting women not only as victims, but as noble underdogs—vulnerable, morally righteous, and inherently deserving of society’s protection and focus. In Western culture, the underdog holds a revered place; their struggle evokes sympathy, support, and a moral imperative to act. Feminism thrives within this framing, as it leverages the societal instinct to champion the underdog and victim, to advance its ideological goals.By elevating women's struggles above all others, gynocentrism ensures that women's issues dominate the discourse, while simultaneously portraying any challenge to that focus as callous or regressive. This dynamic plays directly into feminism’s hands, enabling it to cloak itself in moral legitimacy while resisting scrutiny or balance. The victim-centric framing doesn’t just protect feminism—it empowers it, converting women’s suffering into a cultural rallying point that demands continuous attention and policy response.Meanwhile, men’s struggles are minimized or ignored, as their pain does not fit the underdog narrative gynocentrism upholds. As a result, feminism benefits from a cultural lens that shields it from criticism and maintains women’s narratives as central, unquestionable, and morally superior, while men are relegated to the margins of empathy and policy.

Gynocentrism not only elevates women's suffering—it also provides cover for open hostility toward men. In a cultural context where women are presumed morally superior and perpetually victimized, attacks on men are rarely seen for what they are: expressions of contempt, generalization, and at times outright hate. Feminist rhetoric that blames men collectively for societal problems is tolerated—even celebrated—because gynocentrism flips the moral lens. Where fairness would demand reciprocity and empathy for all, gynocentrism excuses misandry as justified outrage. Without this protective framing, the vilification of men that often occurs in feminist discourse would be seen clearly as morally bankrupt and socially destructive.

6. Unconscious Bias and Cognitive Dissonance

Feminism, when viewed through the lens of gynocentrism, creates a powerful cognitive dissonance for those who challenge it. Cognitive dissonance refers to the mental discomfort that arises when a person is confronted with information that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs or values. In this case, gynocentrism shifts the framework to one where women’s needs and experiences are always considered more important than men’s. When people are faced with information that contradicts this bias—such as evidence of men’s suffering—cognitive dissonance kicks in. It becomes difficult to argue otherwise without being labeled as misogynistic or unsympathetic to women’s issues. This bias makes it easy for people to ignore or rationalize evidence that challenges feminist ideas, because doing so would force them to confront the deeply held belief that women’s perspectives should always come first. As a result, cognitive dissonance leads many to dismiss the realities of male suffering—such as the high rates of male suicide or domestic violence against men—without any corresponding societal change, reinforcing the gynocentric framework.

7. The Sense of Solidarity and Collective Purpose

Feminism offers solidarity, a sense of purpose, and a collective identity for many women. The gynocentric framework supports this by positioning women as a collective group with a shared cause that is viewed as morally righteous. Feminism becomes more than just a political movement—it is a personal and communal experience where women rally around the belief that their needs are paramount and have been neglected by men. Gynocentrism ensures that this solidarity remains intact by consistently placing women’s rights and experiences at the center, leaving little room for other perspectives that might dilute or challenge this collective purpose.

8. Social Media and Confirmation Bias

Social media platforms, with their emphasis on viral content and quick engagement, amplify gynocentric narratives by perpetuating the idea that women’s voices and concerns should dominate. These platforms often create echo chambers where feminist ideas are not just accepted but celebrated, reinforcing the idea that women’s needs should always take precedence. Gynocentrism drives this reinforcement, making it difficult for people—especially men—to challenge feminist narratives without facing backlash. The confirmation bias that exists on these platforms further cements the dominance of the feminist narrative, as users are more likely to encounter content that supports the gynocentric view of gender dynamics.

Conclusion

Gynocentrism is not a side effect of feminist ideology — it is its lifeblood. It provides the cultural scaffolding that shields feminism from scrutiny, fortifies its moral authority, and ensures its dominance in public discourse. By placing women’s needs, perspectives, and grievances at the emotional and ethical center of society, gynocentrism makes feminism feel not like an ideology, but like common sense — even when its claims defy evidence or fairness.

This framing is so deeply embedded in our institutions, our media, and our social instincts that most people — including many well-meaning women and men — defend feminism reflexively, without realizing they’re defending a worldview that demands moral deference to one sex while marginalizing the other. The emotional, social, and psychological incentives to protect feminism are all reinforced by the gynocentric lens through which we view gender.

It also enables something more corrosive: the normalization of male-blame. Gynocentrism allows feminists to attack men collectively—assigning them guilt, privilege, or violence by default—without triggering the moral backlash such generalizations would provoke if directed at women. In this way, gynocentrism not only shields feminism from criticism; it also empowers it to wound others without accountability.

Until we recognize this hidden framework, genuine conversations about equality will remain impossible. So long as gynocentrism goes unexamined, feminism will continue to operate with cultural impunity, upheld by a society that mistakes favoritism for fairness and silence for justice.

The first step to restoring balance is to see the bias — and name it. Gynocentrism must be brought out of the shadows if we are ever to build a society where the needs of both men and women are heard, honored, and held to the same moral standard.

Men Are Good.

Why Is Masculine Maturity So Hard to Talk About Today?

In the early 1990s, you could walk into a bookstore and find entire tables devoted to the male journey. Robert Bly’s Iron John was a bestseller. Sam Keen, James Hillman, Michael Meade,​ Robert Moore, Richard Rohr — all were offering soulful, intelligent takes on what it meant to be a man. It wasn’t about domination. It wasn’t about “reclaiming power.” It was about emotional honesty, growth, and purpose. In other words: maturity.

Fast forward to today, and you’ll find… almost nothing. Talk about masculinity now and the conversation quickly turns to toxicity, privilege, or fragile male egos. Where once there was myth, poetry, and psychology, we now get slogans and shame.

Why did this happen? Why is masculine maturity such a neglected subject?

Here are a few answers — and a couple of stories that may help explain why the silence around men runs so deep.

1. The Cultural Suspicion Toward Masculinity

Over the last fifty years, masculinity has been treated less as a stage of growth and more as a problem to be managed. Many institutions — academic, psychological, media-driven — have become allergic to the idea that men might have unique struggles, let alone a need for support. Masculinity is often reduced to a stereotype: aggressive, emotionally stunted, dangerous. So it’s not surprising that serious explorations of mature masculinity are viewed with skepticism — or simply ignored.

I experienced this firsthand when I joined the American Psychological Association’s Division 51, the group supposedly devoted to studying men and masculinities. Initially, I was welcomed. A few of the men there had read Swallowed by a Snake, my first book, and treated me with respect.

But over time, it became clear this wasn’t a group focused on men. It was a feminist-aligned group focused on monitoring men. That would have been fine if it had also been balanced — but it wasn’t.

One moment still sticks with me. I asked the group — these were top psychologists, many regularly quoted in national media — if they had ever heard of Robert Moore, the Jungian analyst who literally co-wrote King, Warrior, Magician, Lover, one of the most influential models of the mature masculine ever created.

Not one of them had heard of him.

These were the gatekeepers of psychological discourse around men, and they had never encountered one of the most insightful thinkers on the subject. That’s when I realized: this wasn’t a field seeking to understand men — it was a field managing a narrative about men.

They later kicked me out of the group.

2. The Disappearance of Mentorship and Male Space

The maturation of men has always required something very simple but essential: older men guiding younger men. That doesn’t mean domination or militaristic hierarchy — it means real mentorship. Time together. Shared wisdom. A hand on the shoulder.

But today, male-only spaces are either disappearing or treated with suspicion. Most institutions that once created these bonds — churches, trades, father-son traditions — are either crumbling or feminized. Men don’t know where to go, and the culture doesn’t really care that they’re drifting.

3. The Mythopoetic Movement Was Shamed Out of Existence

In the 1990s, the Mythopoetic Men’s Movement made a serious attempt to give men a space to grow, reflect, and feel. Men gathered, sometimes in the woods. They drummed. They told stories. They cried. They got honest.

They did exactly what the culture — and women — had been begging men to do for decades: engage emotionally, get their priorities straight, and connect with other men in a non-competitive, supportive environment.

So what happened?

The media mocked them. Relentlessly. Headlines rolled out: “Men Go Into Woods to Beat Drums and Take Off Their Clothes.” Late-night shows made jokes. These men weren’t harming anyone. They were healing. But that seemed to frighten people — especially the idea that men were coming together in a community that wasn’t controlled or mediated by women.

Instead of being praised, they were ridiculed and dismissed. The movement, shamed out of existence, faded.

4. No Urgency for Male Development

When girls or women face emotional hardship, society responds — with programs, policies, and public empathy. But when boys or men face disconnection, despair, or aimlessness, the response is often: “Toughen up.” Or worse: silence.

There’s a deep-rooted empathy gap when it comes to men. The assumption seems to be that men don’t need emotional depth, spiritual development, or mentorship. They just need to behave. This assumption is not only wrong — it’s dangerous. Because without maturity, all you get is drift, anger, or collapse.

5. Fear of Being Labeled

Today, if you talk too much about men’s needs, you risk being labeled “anti-feminist” or “reactionary.” Even well-meaning men tiptoe around the topic for fear of being misunderstood. As a result, the public conversation is cautious, shallow, or entirely missing.

And yet, quietly, the hunger remains.

Men are looking for guidance — not from social media influencers or political ideologues, but from grounded voices who actually understand what male development looks like from the inside.

So Where Does This Leave Us?

We’re in a strange place. The world criticizes men constantly, but offers no real path to growth. It tells men to “do better,” but doesn’t explain how — or even what “better” means, other than being more like women.

Masculine maturity isn't about dominance, nor is it about submission. It's about becoming whole — integrating strength with compassion, solitude with connection, responsibility with joy.

That journey still matters. In fact, it may matter now more than ever.

And those of us who have walked part of that road — and seen its value — need to keep the conversation alive.

Even when it's inconvenient.

Even when it's mocked.

Even when it's lonely.

Because the silence around men has never been a sign of health. It’s a sign that something sacred has been neglected.

And it’s time we returned to it.

This is a response to a recent New York Times article by Jean Garnett titled “The Trouble With Wanting Men.” The subtitle says it all: “Women are so fed up with dating men that the phenomenon even has a name — heterofatalism. So what do we do with our desire?”

Sometimes, the best response is a little humor while flipping the script. See what you think.

"Heterofatalism: Or How to Blame Men for Everything, Even Our Socks"

Ah, “heterofatalism” — the brand-new term coined for the collective exasperation of women who, after navigating the complex world of dating, come to the conclusion that men are the root of all relationship woes. You see, the issue isn't just that men are occasionally anxious, emotionally distant, or a little too obsessed with their sports teams; no, the real problem is that these poor souls — with all their confusing desires, communication issues, and tendency to occasionally ghost you after a couple of drinks — are making it impossible for women to live happily ever after.

Who needs "old-fashioned man-woman stuff," right? We should really just get rid of men altogether, except... well, hold on. It seems like the author might still enjoy the idea of men, as long as they’re perfectly self-deprecating, emotionally available, not so needy, and able to decode all of her mood swings without missing a beat. Apparently, we’re supposed to be sweet, gentle, and constantly checking in with how she feels — but also not too available, because that would make us “needy.” Are you keeping up, men? No? It’s okay, because we aren’t expected to.

What If We Flipped the Script?

Now, imagine if the shoe was on the other foot. What if a man had these same expectations of you Jean Garnett? What if you had to live up to these impossible standards every time a relationship or date rolled around?

For example, let’s say you’re trying to date someone, and he expects you to be emotionally available all the time, always knowing exactly what he’s feeling, always ready to discuss his feelings — at his convenience. Now imagine if you were the one constantly apologizing for not responding to text messages in 90 seconds flat because you were busy with life, work, or, you know, anything else. Or imagine being told you were "too anxious" to handle a simple conversation because you were stressed over your busy schedule. Does it seem fair that men are expected to always be the ones to “man up” emotionally, while women are allowed to retreat into their own anxiety and demand validation from men?

Also, here’s a fun thought experiment: What if, as a man, you had to hear all the time about how you were the problem in every dating situation? Imagine your date explaining how she loves the “good guy” archetype but constantly finds him lacking because he doesn’t meet every single emotional need immediately. The “good guy” who’s gentle, sweet, and not too self-deprecating — just enough to make you feel like a glorified emotional ATM. It’d be pretty exhausting, wouldn’t it?

Emotional Labor: A Two-Way Street

Let’s get real for a moment. The whole concept of emotional labor often gets pinned solely on men — the idea that women are somehow left to pick up the emotional slack in relationships. But if we take a closer look, we see a different picture. If the standard is that men should always be emotionally available, always interpret every word and gesture in the right way, shouldn’t women also take on the responsibility of understanding the emotional needs of their partners? Isn’t it unfair to expect men to constantly decode the mystery of “how you’re feeling” without giving them the same space to feel confused, anxious, or uncertain about what’s going on in the relationship?

What if men were to complain about the “hermeneutic labor” they had to perform just to keep a relationship afloat? Imagine if men spent every conversation analyzing why you were saying one thing and meaning something else. If men constantly had to decode your emotional signals — every pause, every silence, every hint — would we be quick to dismiss it as just part of being a man? Or would we call it what it is: exhausting?

Isn’t It Time for a Little Empathy?

Now, let’s circle back to that romantic ideal — the “good guy” who wants to be loved, but can’t seem to get it right because he's “too anxious,” “too confused,” or “too emotionally unavailable” when it matters. But what if, just maybe, the problem isn’t his inability to meet her needs, but the sheer weight of the unrealistic expectations placed upon him? Imagine being a man, constantly told that you are too much or not enough at the same time — one minute, you need to be emotionally open, the next you’re told you’re too emotional.

Let’s flip the script.
Imagine you’re the one who needs a little breathing room — just some space to think.
But your partner won’t let it go:
“Why can’t you just communicate like a grown-up? What are you, emotionally stunted?”
And when you finally admit you’re anxious or overwhelmed, you’re slapped with labels like “needy,” “hysterical,” or “too sensitive.”
Then he runs off to his buddies, and they all have a good laugh at your expense:
“Aww, poor little fraidy-cat princess. Guess she ​just can't woman up.”
Sound familiar?
Because that’s exactly what you and your friends did to him.
Doesn’t feel so good when the joke’s on you, does it?

Rewriting the Narrative

Maybe it's time to see men as humans rather than stereotypes. Men don’t exist just to fulfill emotional needs, and relationships should be about mutual respect, not endless demands. If we really want to evolve into better relationships, we need to recognize the emotional labor on both sides and give each other the space to be imperfect — without judgment.

Here’s a radical idea: instead of blaming men for the failures of the modern dating scene, let’s take a step back and realize that maybe we’re all a little messed up. And that’s okay. You don’t need us to “man up” — you just need us to be real, and we need the same from you.

And if we’re not perfect? Well, at least we’re not trying to make every relationship a philosophical debate about what does it mean to love and how can we both be completely vulnerable and emotionally invulnerable at the same time.

Pro tip: next time your man shows up with a little emotional confusion, give him a break. Men are not puzzles to be solved; we’re just humans trying to navigate a world that often doesn’t make sense to any of us.

And for the record: ​Men Are Good.